Ancient city of Yaxchilan hidden in the jungle in the borderland of Mexico and GuatemalaGetty

“With just one profound discovery, mankind’s entire story could change,” so said Megan Fox in the Travel Channel’s latest archaeology-themed television show, Legends of the Lost. This statement presents an excellent example of the two-sided conundrum facing attempts to bring archaeology to the small screen. First, what Fox said is exciting, intriguing, and the exact kind of drama one needs to attract a television audience. Second, that is not how archaeology works! Over decades of research archaeologists have amassed a vast quantity of data laying out the history of humankind. As a result, no one single discovery can change our entire story, but that sounds less appealing to audiences.

As a result, it can be difficult to put “real archaeology” on TV; instead, cable television is awash with shows that report to be about ancient mysteries. The Travel Channel recently debuted another show, Lost Amazon: Project Z, where the hosts went on a hunt for lost cities in the Amazon rainforest. The Curse of Oak Island on the History Channel features people digging pits across a small Canadian island in search of lost treasures, Knights Templar and meandering ancient Romans. The most infamous show of them all, Ancient Aliens claims that the archaeological record is rife with evidence of alien contact, even though the objectionsofscholarshave made it clear such claims are not true.

These sensational shows may be exciting to viewers, but they represent problematic distortions of the human past that rise to the level of pseudoarchaeology. Pseudoarchaeological claims make use of archaeological materials, such as ancient architecture or artifacts, but consistently disregard even the most basic of archaeological methods. For example, the chronological context of objects is often ignored to draw connections between different ancient cultures. Ignatius Donnelly popularized this practice in the 1880s when he claimed that the pyramids built by the Classic period Maya and those built by the Old Kingdom Egyptians were so similar that they necessitated a cultural connection; even though these structures were separated by almost 3,000 years of history.

To the eternal frustration of professional archaeologists, pseudoarchaeological claims repeatedly end up on television despite their blatant inaccuracies. The question for archaeologists, is what can be done about it? A freelance TV producer told me that “Pseudoarchaeology ends up on TV because it gets viewers. It provides sensational topics that immediately hook the audience with tales of adventure and mystery, plus it’s often cheap to make.” In contrast, they suggested that network executives find the reality of archaeology, with its “slow, methodical excavations, lengthy discussions, research and inconclusive results” to be “boring.”

Legends of the Lost made an interesting attempt to sidestep these doldrums by bringing on actress Megan Fox as the show’s host. Not only did Fox bring her star power to the show, but according to mediainterviews, she brought a passion for studying the ancient world. This combination was intriguing and offered some promise. Fox, however, also brought with her a perspective on the ancient world that seems to have been profoundly influenced by Ancient Aliens and other pseudoarchaeological claims, as well as an apparent belief that archaeologists are covering up the truth.

When a new show has the potential to dabble in pseudoarchaeology, it provokes a debate among professional archaeologists. Simply put, should archaeologists participate in these shows or not? As a finite and decaying resource, the archaeological record is in desperate need of preservation and a foundational step to that preservation is raising public awareness. From this perspective, any television coverage of archaeology can be considered good. Moreover, if archaeologists appear on such shows and can present real information, they might be able to counter any pseudoarchaeological claims. Yet, since the archaeologists have no say in the final editing process, they also fear that by appearing on such shows their work might be distorted or even made to seem as if they support something that they do not.

Archaeologist Dr. Ken Feder has had just such an experience. While being interviewed for a documentary about Atlantis, Feder had a reported being impressed with the film crew. “They asked me to recount Plato’s story of Atlantis, then they asked me a series of questions about the story: what didn’t ring true, how archaeological and historical evidence fails to support the story, etc. All good stuff and they were terrific to work with,” but when the show was released Feder said “I cringed when I saw the thing.” His statements to the effect that Atlantis was not real had been pushed to the very end of the episode. As a result, for a solid forty minutes a viewer could have been forgiven for thinking that Feder believed Atlantis to be a real place, particularly if that viewer never finished watching the episode.

Experiences like this loom large in the backroom chatter of professional archaeology. Thus, when Legends of the Lost entered production, the producers found that some archaeologists were wary of working with them. Dr. Adrienne Mayor had spoken with the show’s producers about her research on Greek Amazons and other stories of warrior women for the show, but when she learned about Fox’s attitudes toward archaeology she requested “that my name and material not be used in the episode.” Another archaeologist also told the author in confidence that they had been approached by the show but decided it was in their best interest not to participate.

Dr. Eric H. Cline also wrestled with these issues but ultimately chose to work with Legends of the Lost. He said that “it is always a gamble in deciding whether to participate or not in such shows.” Cline, however, was impressed by the professionalism and the level of research that the producers had done in advance, and ultimately decided that the opportunity to raise awareness about archaeological research was paramount. As is frequently the case, however, he did not have any say in the final product and told me that when the episode aired, he was disappointed to see some of the material that the producers ultimately chose to include.

Archaeologists want to see more archaeology on television. Television viewers appear to agree. The question is whether we can bridge the gap between sensationalized views of archaeology and the story of the human experience that archaeologists are unfolding with their work. There are examples of good archaeological TV. Ask any archaeologist and they will wistfully look off into the distance and tell you about the show Time Team. PBS and BBC likewise regularly produce good documentaries about the ancient world, but Dr. Monty Dobson, archaeologist and film producer, told the author “convincing a network to put research-based archaeology on the air is a challenge.”

It appears that more than anything, the message that archaeologists need to get across is that, despite what network executives think, archaeology is not boring! New excavations are being carried out every year and adding to our grand narrative of the human past. Feder notes “we constantly revise our explanations, interpretations and conclusions” as this new information gradually reveals an ever-clearer picture of our past. It is the sensational stories of mysterious lost cities and buried treasure that never change. Dr. Jeb J. Card notes that these claims are nothing more than “recycled Victorian ideas that were shown to be false before the radio was invented.” The time has come for more real archaeology on television, if only those networks executives will listen!

The author would like to extend thanks to all those who spoke with him in the preparation of this piece. In addition to the scholars mentioned above. he would also like to thank Dr. Kristina Killgrove, Dr. Sarah Parcak, Dr. Leslie Anne Warden, Dr. Fabio Silva, and Dr. Katie Stringer Clary for their helpful comments and suggestions.